I am not a sheep, I have my own mind
I have had enough of being told what and how to think
Whilst we are still allowed the remnants of free speech, I will speak out.
I also reserve the right to discuss less controversial matters should I feel the urge.
Once again the BBC report bad economic news with excuses, something I do not remember them doing when a conservative government was in power, but then there is an election to be saved for Labour.
The reality is a 3.4 per cent rise in the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) and the Retail Prices Index (RPI) - which includes the cost of mortgages and housing - reaching 4.4 per cent, which is the highest for that measure since September 2008.
Still to come this week are the latest statistics on unemployment, retail sales and borrowing figures for the last full financial year and then on Friday (but Thursday for Gordon Brown so he has the figures before the second leaders' debate) the first official estimate of first quarter gross domestic product (GDP).
In the next few weeks people will see their take home pay drop as a result of Gordon Brown’s decision to freeze tax allowances. And if anyone is thinking of voting LibDem remember that a hung Parliament is likely to lead to an even weaker pound and higher inflation, with the concomitant risk of higher interest rates to tackle it.
I am not alone in predicting this, James Hughes, chief economist at Black Swan Capital wealth management, said:
"The UK economy has some very deep, fundamental problems that won’t be solved simply by installing a new government, and this sharp increase in UK inflation to 3.4 per cent is possibly just the start of an inevitable and unstoppable slide towards double-digit inflation and interest rates within the next few years."
Gordon Brown's legacy like that of the Wilson/Callaghan/Healey government will be inflation, debt and despair - "Things can only get better" - REALLY?
'The Met Office unnecessarily triggered the six-day closure of British airspace which has cost passengers, airlines and the economy more than £1.5billion, according to senior officials.
A scientific model based on ‘probability’ rather than fact was used by the government agency to forecast the spread of the volcanic ash cloud, according to critics.
Matthias Ruete, the European Commission’s director general of transport, said air traffic authorities should not have imposed a widespread ban.
He suggested the ban should have been restricted to a 20 to 30 mile limit around the volcano in Iceland.
He said: 'The science behind the model we are running at the moment is based on certain assumptions where we do not have scientific evidence. It is a black box in certain areas.'
Results of 40 or so European test flights over the weekend, including a British Airways flight on Sunday, suggested the risks were not as high as computer models predicted.
None found evidence of any ash in engines, windows or lubrication systems.
'We don’t even know what density the cloud should be in order to affect jet engines. We have a model that runs on mathematical predictions.
'It is probability rather than actual things happening,' Mr Ruete said.'
A computer model, hmm that could be as relibale as those that predict Climate Change...
'The statistics watchdog has criticised the decision to allow Gordon Brown to get key economic figures before the party leaders’ television debate this Thursday.
The Prime Minister will be the only party leader to know if Britain has fallen back into recession before the debate. The figures will be released on Friday morning. Last night, Sir Michael Scholar, chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, said the situation was unacceptable.
The figures will show whether the recovery has been sustained during the first three months of the year. They are expected to have a significant bearing on the election campaign.
...
A spokesman for Sir Michael said the authority believed access to the statistics should be three hours or less before their release. Conservative sources said they might lodge a complaint.
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats’ economics spokesman, said all parties should have the same information at the same time. '
Fairness & equality not words that Gordon Brown has ever run his life by. The man is a fraud and all his protestations about having a 'moral compass' and the like should be dismissed as lies.
A while back I, and others, used to speculate that Gordon Brown would not hold a general election, 'postponing' because of some 'national emergency'. Am I alone in getting a tad suspicious that the seeming overreaction of completely closing UK airspace not because any volcanic ash has been observed above the UK but on the say so of Met Office who are relying on their always reliable computer simulations of weather systems. These are the same computer simulations that seem incapable of producing accurate three-day weather forecasts.
Are we being set-up for a postponed election? Before you scoff, remember that Tony Blair dry-ran this technique with the postponed council elections at the height of the foot-and-mouth epidemic, another disaster that was massively exaggerated and overreacted to by this Labour government.
'Giving up your seat to a woman is frowned upon in these days of sexual equality, so if you really want to be polite to a woman why not give up your job instead?'
From Guy Browning's 'Never Push When It Says Pull - Small rules for little problems'.
The Damned were the first 'punk' group to have a single release 'New Rose' and I like them...
"We've been crying now for much too long And now we're gonna dance to a different song I'm gonna scream and shout til my dying breath I'm gonna smash it up til theres nothing left
Oooh ooh smash it up, smash it up, smash it up Oooh ooh smash it up, smash it up, smash it up
People call me villain oh its such a shame Maybe its my clothes must be to blame I don't even care if I look a mess Don't wanna be a sucker like all the rest
Oooh ooh smash it up, smash it up, smash it up Oooh ooh smash it up, smash it up, smash it up
Smash it up Smash it up Smash it up Smash it up Smash it up
Smash it up, you can keep your krishna burgers Smash it up, and your Glastonbury hippies Smash it up, you can stick your frothy lager Smash it up, and your blow wave hairstyles
And everybody's smashing things down I said everybody's smashing things down yeah"
Dave Vanian, Captain Sensible, ,Rat Scabies & Algy Ward; pure poetry.
Guido Fawkes has the not totally unsurprising revelation that one of the people employed to deal with complaints of bias is a Labour party council candidate and 'on his Facebook page... spins for Brown, who he refers to as “the boss” and advocates his friends vote Labour.'
Anybody in the slightest surprised? I wonder what the BBC's reaction to this will be and whether there are any prospective Conservative councillors employed to deal with complaints?
Looks like I have come late to this story, Beeb Bias Craig has some more details.
'Louis Theroux, the documentary-maker, has claimed he used to wake Nick Clegg up in the morning when they were at boarding school together.
The television presenter’s claim that he was the Liberal Democrat leader’s “fag” at Westminster School has led to renewed focus on the latter’s privileged upbringing.
Until recently, much had been made in the election campaign of David Cameron’s well-off family and his elite education at Eton and Oxford.
But Mr Clegg enjoyed an equally comfortable start in life, as the son of a successful banker, Nicholas Clegg, who is now chairman of United Trust Bank.
The MP’s maternal grandfather had been president of ABN, the Dutch bank. Despite this, Mr Clegg regularly criticises the “greedy” bankers who triggered the worldwide financial crisis and wants a 10 per cent tax on profits in the financial sector.
His paternal grandmother was Baroness Kira von Engelhardt, a descendant of an Attorney General in the Imperial Russian senate.
Mr Clegg grew up in the picturesque commuter town of Chalfont St Giles, Bucks, but his family also owns a large chalet in the Alps and a chateau in France.
He was sent to school at Westminster School in London where fees for boarders are now £28,344 a year.
One of his peers was Mr Theroux - best known for his BBC2 documentary series, Weird Weekends – who claims that he used to wait upon the politician every morning and bring him a newspaper.
Mr Theroux said that he had been Mr Clegg’s “fag”, in the old-fashioned system formerly widespread in public schools whereby younger pupils had to act as servants for older ones, waking him up in the morning during term time and presenting him with a newspaper.'
Elizabeth Filkin was the the former Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards who found there were certain members of the Government, including Keith Vaz and Peter Mandelson, whose conduct fell below the standards to which Labour said it was committed. Her contract was not renewed. The Telegraph report that:
'The intriguing prospect (of Elizabeth Filkin returning to a compliance role) is raised by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s disclosure that chief executive, Andrew McDonald, has been lunching with Mrs Filkin.... the authority will appoint a “compliance officer” after the election, responsible for probing errant MPs and dishing out punishments.
Drafting in Mrs Filkin - the nemesis of the pre-expenses scandal Commons - could be seen as a strong statement of intent.'
Justice would be done, now we just need the EU to find an investigatory role for Marta Andreasen!
Immigration is one issue where all the facts point to the usual mix of Labour incompetence, mismanagement, deliberate policy and lying. The Telegraph revealed yesterday that:
'In the first ever televised prime ministerial debate last week, Mr Brown predicted "40,000 less students, I suspect, this year, because of our tightening of visa controls.'
Nobody will be surprised that this seems to have been about as accurate a figure as most proclaimed by Gordon Brown. The Telegraph explains:
'new figures revealed in a parliamentary answer show that 99,932 students successfully applied for visas up until September 2009 – with huge rises in the six months after the new points system was introduced in March. In the previous academic year, 61,247 visas were granted to students from the same seven countries.'
And on hand was FRank Field,
'the former Labour minister and outspoken critic of his own party's immigration policy who obtained the figures, said last night: "You cannot get a more clear demonstration that the points system does not work unless you also set a cap.'
'A cap' being Conservative policy and one that Gordon Brown says cannot work.
The Telegraph report ends:
'Sources have claimed that consular officials in the Indian sub-Continent were warning Home Office officials about the spike in applications at the end of last year after it became clear the new rules were open to exploitation.
Sir Andrew Green, the former diplomat who runs the anti-immigration think tank MigrationWatch, said: "This blows out of the water government claims about their points-based system being 'tough'. Most of it is students and that part has got off to a shambolic start."
He suggested the points-based system had turned the visa process into a 'box ticking' exercise that had all but eliminated face-to-face interviews from the application process. Students now knew exactly what they needed to do to gain a visa and were manipulating forms to ensure success.
Sources have told The Sunday Telegraph that consular officials were warning the Government last year of the huge spike – born out by the new figures – but that those fears were ignored until finally in February the system was suspended. '
I end with these thoughts: we know that over 90% of Gordon Brown's 'new jobs' have gone to people born outside of the UK, we know that the UK Immigration system had become all but a sham under this Labour government, we know that mass immigration was a deliberate Downing Street policy to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", we know that Labour's "points system" is a failure and that there are many ways that immigrants get around the system - "family reunion" being one. We know that Gordon Brown was part of the Labour government that stopped counting people in and out of the country and we know that re-implementing this system will not be in place for at least another three years. We know that the Labour government have used immigration as a weapon to destroy Conservatives and conservatism and that the Lib Dems favour an amnesty (of sorts on illegal immigrants. We know that immigration is one of the key matters that concern the British public so is it the fear of being called 'racists' and 'the nasty party' by the Labour/BBC/LibDem alliance that scares the Conservatives off of going hard on this subject? Time is running out, in 18 days the polls open and unless David Cameron's Conservatives change up a gear I fear for the future of the UK.
Ever since the planes were grounded I have been wondering when or if we will ever be allowed to fly again. What organisation is going to give the all-clear and risk a plane being affected by volcanic ash? The fact that no plane has ever crashed after being affected by volcanic ash and that the only planes so affected have flown above erupting volcanoes not through these 'clouds of ash' that the experts' planes seem unable to find. I see that KLM have sent a 737 up and it is reported that:
'"At first glance there is no reason to suspect that anything is amiss," says KLM chief Peter Hartman, who participated in the flight as an observer along with operations head Ype de Haan.
Initial technical checks in a hangar after the landing have also revealed no problems, although KLM says it will obtain final results today.'
Are there other reasons for European airspace being closed, is this a dry run for something more sinister?
Frank Field continues his slow move to the Conservatives with The Mail reporting that:
'MP Frank Field accuses Gordon Brown of destroying economy
A former Labour Minister has accused Gordon Brown of ‘Alice In Wonderland politics’ which have left Britain facing ‘destruction’ by an economic catastrophe in the summer.
The doom-laden prediction came in a ferocious personal attack on the ‘abnormal’ Prime Minister by senior Labour MP Frank Field.
Ignoring pleas by Labour chiefs not to rock the boat in the run up to the Election, Mr Field savaged the Prime Minister’s economic record and said Britain might never recover unless swift action is taken to save the nation from bankruptcy.
‘Our country is in such a state,’ said Birkenhead MP Mr Field.
‘We’ve printed money to buy our own debt. It’s real Alice In Wonderland politics.
'We have to ask the world if they want to lend us money. If we can’t shift the debt we’re finished.’
Frank Field is one of the few honest Labour MPs and so really should do the decent thing and move away from a party lead by liars, cheats and crooks.
Letters From a Tory accuses Gordon Brown of lying about army funding in the first leaders' debate. I am so not shocked, Gordon Brown lies as a matter of course, but he does have two 'tells'; the first is a fake smile, the second is when he says ' to be honest' (or similar).
In the second debate, David Cameron has to be angrier, he tried to be too Prime Ministerial on Thursday and lost ground because of it.
'The subtlety of what took place on Thursday night is profound. The clothes that Cameron was expected to wear during the campaign have been taken from him. It is Clegg that has inspired and cut through to the electorate, and by doing so has put the Tories firmly on the defensive.
Little doubt Team Cameron are having ‘don’t panic yet’ meetings this weekend in an attempt to tweak their strategy. But they need more than that. The Tories need Clegg to ‘crash and burn’ spectacularly during the coming days, and for Cameron to score heavily in the second debate. Without both of these little happenings, he will be in deep trouble.
One more small matter. If the polls do continue to indicate a hung parliament, the turnout is likely to be high, which favours Labour rather than the Tories.'
However Nabidana presents a somewhat contrary view:
'But seriously, there are two more debates and almost three weeks of election campaigning left. And Brown has been holed below the water line, with no actual damage done to the Cameron electoral proposition. And why are we suddenly frightened of UNS where, actually, so many marginal seats have just become available to the LibDems where previously they were distant seconds to Labour.
I believe that Labour happiness at the result from the polls and the debate is misplaced – I suspect that when tabulated against seats, swing to LibDem will be stronger in Labour safe seats than in Conservative / Labour marginals, and that the current ‘hold’ seats for Conservatives are quite safe.
...
Calm the fuck down.'
Which point of view is correct? In three weeks we will know...
Subrosa lists Lib Dem policies that Gordon Brown will acquiesce with in order to keep his snotty hands on the levers of power:
'We will not waste taxpayer subsidies on nuclear power and we will block any plans for dirty coal power stations.
A zero-carbon Britain – We are the first party to aim for a carbon neutral Britain so we don't contribute at all to global warming - making the British economy carbon neutral overall by 2050, reducing carbon emissions in the UK by over 40% of 1990 levels by 2020 as a step on the way.
Share the security burden through more defence co-operation with allies – European countries need to work together more effectively on defence and security. There are huge savings to be made by buying in bulk and sharing military assets. With the defence budget under terrible strain, it would be irresponsible not to do this.
The Euro – Liberal Democrats believe that it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the Euro.'
The BBC/Labour alliance have decided that to save Britain from 'the same old Tories' an alliance of Labour and the Lib Dems is the best option and they are actively working towards that end. The supine Conservatives have left it too late to complain about the BBC's bias that I, Biased-BBC and Beeb Bias Craig have been documenting for so long - they almost deserve to lose this election- the complacent fools.
Dizzy Thinks has uncovered that Labour are introducing means testing for child dentistry. I do not expect the BBC to cover this story, after all there is an election to be won.
Possibly the best line ever in an episode of Dr Who - "Would you care for some tea?" said by a Dalek.
Other highlights, although what could be better than a Dalek offering The Doctor a cup of tea, were a Dalek carrying a box file on his 'sink plunger' and the frankly brilliant sight of a Dalek on the roof in a blackout with little khaki hoods on the little lights on his head.
'Victory of the Daleks' was a typical Mark Gatiss written episode, historical with a touch of the surreal. Mark Gatiss's love of the 1930s to 1950s as shown in 'The Idiot's Lantern' was nicely displayed and the character of Matt Smith's Doctor is becoming more filled out and Karen Gillan/Amy Pond's skirt was brief enough to keep the dad's watching happily .
Not a classic episode but good enough to keep the series ticking over nicely.
The spoilers at the end annoy, as usual, but next week it's the return of Professor River Song and the Weeping Angels in 'The Time of Angels'. As I said previously I feel it's too soon for the return of River Song, has nobody heard of delayed gratification in the Dr Who team? I also fear that the Weeping Angels might not be as incredible as in 'Blink'.
'David Cowling, editor of the BBC Political Research Unit, has posted this today on the BBC website's Poll Watch:
Analysis: * SATURDAY UPDATE:
A Sun newspaper poll, carried out after the TV debate, suggests Labour are in third place on 28% (down 3%), with the Lib Dems on 30% (up 8%) and the Conservatives 33% (down 4%). Applying the figures from The Sun poll, which came from a YouGov survey of 1,290 people, to the BBC News website's election seat calculator, results in the following: Labour 276 seats; Conservatives 245 seats; Lib Dems 100 seats; Others 29 seats.
This is the first national poll sampled after Thursday's debate. Clearly the findings, if confirmed by the polls expected on Sunday, are important. It is worth pointing out that the two point difference between the Liberal Democrats and Labour is within normal sampling error, so it does not mean Labour is definitively in third place.
Although the headline focus may be on the Liberal Democrats appearing ahead of Labour we should not ignore the poll's suggestion that the Conservative fall in support is bigger than Labour's.
Perhaps it is best to consider this single poll as an immediate referendum on Thursday night's debate, until we have evidence, if any, that it represents the settled will of British voters. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8626154.stm
* Why does Mr Cowling emphasize the possibility of a sampling error concerning the 2% Lib Dem lead over Labour but ignore it when foregrounding the additional 1% fall in support by the Conservatives (4% compared to 3% for Labour)? Surely we 'should not ignore' that the 'normal sampling error' also 'does not mean' 'that the Conservative fall in support is' 'definitively' ' bigger than Labour's'.'
I think Beeb Bias Craig knows as well as I do why Mr Cowling wants to place emphasis in the way that he says; the BBC need to keep the pressure on the Conservatives and minimise the pressure on Labour.
So the Lib Dems have benefited hugely from Nick Clegg's appearance at the first leaders' debate. What he was doing there in the first place is beyond me but what might have happened had the party that came second in the most recent EU elections had also had a place? Here's Nigel Farage getting the exposure that he deserves...
Nigel Farage is wrong, there is one phrase that everyone will remember - Gordon Brown's "I agree with Nick" Nice to see John Sergeant standing up for Gordon Brown's economic policies.
The immediate reaction of the Labour party to last night's You Gov poll showing the Lib Dems overtaking the Labour party was to twitter: 'YouGov: Seats CON: 244 LAB: 271 LDEM 103 #ge2010 #labourwin'
'Now, losing the popular vote, coming second but still winning power, as in 2005, flew... just. However, boasting that even if you come third you'll still win most seats whilst campaigning on an electoral reform agenda?
Would the infamous "court of public opinion" stand for that?'
One more election not won by the Conservative party and the EU project can be finished, the 'new world order' established and electoral reform introduced to ensure a succession of left of centre governments and seats for the very minority parties that the liberal left claim to hate. Don't you just love democracy?
Now maybe the Conservatives will regret not standing up and complaining, as Labour did previously, to the Electoral Commission about the bias inherent in the UK electoral system. Regrets are one thing but it is far too late now and the left wing chickens are coming home to roost and whilst they roost they will crap all over the Conservative party's shiny new car.
'A new YouGov poll for The Sun has put Labour in third place - behind the Liberal Democrats - for the first time in the General Election campaign.
It comes on the heels of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's winning performance in the first televised leaders' debate.
The poll puts the Conservatives in the lead on 33% (down four), the Liberal Democrats on 30% (up eight) and Labour on 28 (down three).
Professor Michael Thrasher has translated the figures into what the House of Commons may look like based on this poll.
Labour would still be the largest party with 78 seats despite being third in the popular vote, because of the distribution of votes in 2005 and the application of uniform swing, he told Sky News.
"The Lib Dems could be the kingmakers," he said, with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats able to call a coalition.'
The BBC are not yet reporting the story, presumably they need to check with Peter Mandelson for the correct spin to apply to this story.
So as I predicted Nick Clegg gained hugely from the first leaders' debate and from the way that Gordon Brown was cosying up to Nick Clegg during the debate and the way that Peter Mandelson was 'bigging up' Nick Clegg in interviews afterwards it would seem that the Lib-Lab pact is up and running already.
It would seem that the Labour leadership have done their calculations and realised that the guff about narrowing polls was just guff and that the larger swing in the marginals would be enough to give the Conservatives a working majority. So 'plan B' it had to be; 'plan B' being boosting the Lib Dems to ensure that Labour and the Lib Dems could form a government, change the voting system and so ensure a perpetual left of centre government in the UK. First readings seem to show that the Lib Dems have indeed been boosted but what if they are boosted too much?
Will the Lib Dems gain as much as the initial polls record? If the Lib Dems do gain will it be at the expense of the Conservatives in the south and west or Labour in the north? The Labour calculation must be that disenchanted Labour voters would rather move to the Lib Dems than the Conservatives, are they right? What if the Lib Dem voters who voted Labour in 1997, 2001 & 2005 so as to keep the Conservatives out as the Lib Dems couldn't win, now decide to vote Lib Dem; what might that do to the number of Labour MPs returned to Parliament? I wonder what Labour MPs in Labour/Lib Dem marginals think of this tactic; do they like being thought of as expendable in the great war against the Tories?
Lots of questions there, but tomorrow an alternative theory from the more paranoid side of NotaSheep's brain...
Political Betting speculate that: 'Reports are buzzing about that the Lib Dems have moved into second place in a poll due out tonight. I assume it is YouGov - no doubt we will find out soon.'
The 07:00 Radio 4 news this morning included three interview with people who were in the audience for the leaders' debate last night. Two thought Nick CLegg had done best and might swap to vote Lib Dem, one had been impressed by all of them especially Gordon Brown. Noone plumped for David Cameron; I wonder how many people in total were questioned by the BBC and how those three were selected? There is after all a 'narrative' to push.
I turned on my radio about 30 seconds before hearing that piece, the Today programme is nothing if not reliable in its bias.
Has David Cameron got an anecdote to illustrate every answer to every question?
Is Gordon Brown going to take the credit for his plans to improve everything from now on, ignoring the last 13 years?
Can Nick Clegg really believe his luck at being included in this debate despite having zero chance of becoming Prime Minister?
Did David Cameron say that he met a 40 year old black man in Plymouth who came to the UK when he was 6 and had been in the Royal Navy for 30 years. How old was he when he took the Queen's shilling?
Gordon Brown with an over-prepared joke there about posters and Lord Ashcroft. And another over-prepared line about airbrushing pictures - the BBC will love that line.
Fuck off Gordon you have 'flippers' in your cabinet, one next door to you. Gordon Brown suddenly in favour of democracy, and what is this crap about the hereditary peers and appointed - what's the proportion of hereditaries? 72 out of 733.
Mrs NotaSheep wants to know why Gordon Brown has a creepy smile on his face the whole time. She's even more annoyed by him than I am!
Gordon THE HOUSE OF LORDS IS NOT HEREDITARY NOW - IT IS ONLY 10% HEREDITARY
Education has not improved over the last few years, exams have got easier.
Mrs NotaSheep says she is in awe of David Cameron and Nick Clegg for not pummelling Gordon Brown.
Mrs NotaSheep (get your own blog) thinks that someone has told Gordon Brown to smile but he's taking it to extremes.
ALARM ALARM ALARM - When Gordon Brown says "I'll be honest with you" there is one thing for certain and that's that he is not being honest with us.
Will Nick Clegg manage to answer any question without mentioning "you two", "those two" or similar?
£1 billion is 1% of UK government spending, could you not save 1% Gordon?
Why did the business leaders say that they were against the 1% rise in NIc? Answer the f**king question Gordon, go on just the once?
Gordon Brown's (in)sincere warm words re our armed forces really piss me off every time he utters them, he so transparently fake.
Finally David Cameron attacks Gordon Brown on his under-funding of the armed forces in Afghanistan. Gordon Brown fails to address the original point and tells what is the situation now.
Does Gordon Brown ever answer a question? Personal guarantees from Gordon Brown are worth what?
Is it possible for Nick Clegg to answer a question without saying "let's be honest"?
Overall: Gordon Brown came out far better than the low expectations that were carefully made for him. But his inane grinning really grates and the endless promises that are uncosted and purely made to trap the Conservatives into opposing very annoying and should have been challenged.
David Cameron didn't get passionate enough and didn't get angry with Gordon Brown's digging and lying. Looks good and sounds good but did himself no favours tonight, he needs to find a way of countering Gordon Brown's tactics in the next two debates.
Nick Clegg was just glad to be there and obviously could not believe his luck. Came over rather well although his obvious cosying up to Gordon was a bit too obvious. He will come out best in the post show polls and as I predicted when the debate line-up was announced the Lib Dems will get a boost in the polls, but from Labour or the Conservatives?
Now the closing remarks: Nick Clegg - There is an alternative, ooh he noted down the questoners first names (maybe next time he will note their surnames and in the third debate their favourite food). "Give real change a chance... choose something different"
Gordon Brown - X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent, "secure the recovery". How is not implementing the NIc rise taking money out of the economy, where does Gordon Brown think the money will go? Gordon Brown attacks David Cameron, will David Cameron return the compliment?
David Cameron - "Choose hope over fear... big society... wasting money to secure the recovery is wrong... nice end lines as well... incredible things... change and leadership that I would bring to this great country.
Best ending remarks by David Cameron, the most Prime Ministerial...
Now for the handshakes...
That's cruel having Gordon Brown descend on you to shake hands do people not realise where he puts his fingers?
I wasn't going to blog again before tonight's leaders' debate but this Guardian article was just too good to leave un-commented upon:
'Peter Mandelson has warned Gordon Brown to "show respect" to his adversaries during tonight's leadership debates amid fears that voters will disapprove of his brusque manner.
Asked if there was a danger that the prime minister would reveal his irritability towards the Tory leader, he said Brown would "do his best" to conceal his frustration.
"He's got to show respect," he said. "It's not that he doesn't think David Cameron is clever – David Cameron is clever – I think the prime minister just finds him sometimes a bit trivial, a bit glib."
"People will mark him down for not showing respect for the people he is debating with."'
Isn't it nice that the Prime Minister's controller has to 'warn' the Prime Minister to act like a normal human being rather than the weirdo that he truly is.
How the UK had this stain on the face of humanity foisted on us as Prime Minister is something that will be written about for years and years. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, when people have some perspective, they will realise that what Tony Blair, Gordon Brow, Peter Mandelson (and the rest of the Labour cabal) did to the UK was truly evil. The trouble is that they will have got away with it, rich and powerful men despite/because of their actions. However hopefully they will rot in hell for all eternity and I hope that the thought of this everlasting torment keeps them awake at night until the day they die.
As you can tell I am not a happy NotaSheep tonight.
No seriously, what could possibly happen at tonight's debate that would convince the BBC 'pundits' that Gordon Brown had not 'won' it? If Gordon Brown started to shout "I am right, I am always right, he went to Eton, Lord Ashcroft, Lord Ascroft, Lord Ashcroft..."? If Gordon Brown started to weep quietly into his water and had to be lead away by Ed Balls? If Gordon Brown leapt across the stage and attacked David Cameron declaring "let me at the Tory toff"?
'It has been revealed that Steven Purcell, former head of Glasgow City Council, is undergoing a police investigation. He has been alleged of being corrupt. Strathclyde Police are probing into documents to verify whether Purcell employed unjustifiable influence to obtain a £50,000 contract for friend and fellow councilor, Ruth Black.
Reports conjecture the case is being examined by the Major Crimes and Terrorism Unit.
A spokesman from the police department evinced, "Strathclyde Police are assessing the information available to them, therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this stage".
The matter came to light when SNP councilors were tipped-off about potentially incriminating data over the allocation of the publicly funded lesbian and gay drop-in centre, in the city, to Ruth Black. This information was then handed over to police.
Ruth Black, was earlier in-charge of the centre. However, the center had collapsed and left a debt of £300,000 in April 2009. The collapse came two years after Black resigned and stepped down from her chair.
According to reports, two rival bids were made for the center. The two competitors were Glasgay, an established organization, and Black who proposed to set up a new organization called Castro. The outcome of the bid was in favor of Black.'
Still not a word on the BBC who were recently all over the Iris Robinson story, it must be nice to be so unbiased.
On Monday I blogged about how the BBC's Poll Tracker was being updated. I have had a look this morning and see that although the latest YouGov poll has been added to Poll Tracker, a poll which shows an increased Conservative lead, it has not been included in the 'Poll of Polls' chart. The Poll Tracker 'Poll of Polls' recently became the default chart so with the trickery on Sunday/Monday to arrange the Poll Tracker database update to the benefit of Labour's figures and today's non-updating of the 'Poll of Polls', the BBC can still talk about 'narrowing polls'.
This sort of statistical chicanery is more common than you might think and is well documented in the area of climate change 'science'; take a read of Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit and/or Joanne Nova for plenty of examples. It is something that is practised by people trying to prove a point and/or manipulate opinion rather than report facts; so where does that leave the BBC during a general election campaign?
'There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate" affair.
This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit.
It began its review after e-mails from CRU scientists were published online.'
Of course the 'independent' panel was nothing of the sort, as I have previously blogged, so the conclusions are hardly surprising. However the BBC have not reported the whole story. They do manage to hide this
'Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables.'
near the bottom of the piece. The spin continues with this:
'Professor Hand said that the CRU scientists did not use "the best statistical tools for their studies" but that this had made not significant difference to their conclusions.'
'The BBC reports that Lord Oxburgh of Globe International is to report his report on CRU science, perhaps tomorrow. The panel was first announced on March 22, 2010 – see here. No terms of reference were disclosed then, nor, to my knowledge, have they been disclosed subsequently.
Harrabin says that “members of the panel are said to have cross-examined CRU researchers for a total of 15 man-days”.
To my knowledge, they have not interviewed any critics of CRU or targets of the Climategate emails.'
That's odd so have the 'independent' panel interviewed anyone other than CRU researchers?
'The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages.
They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)
They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee.
...
Update 9.40 am. The Daily Telegraph reports:
Professor Hand did say that “inappropriate methods” were used by a separate university to draw up the infamous “hockey stick” graph showing the rise in global temperatures over more than 1,000 years.
Uh, memo to Oxburgh. CRU produced its own hockey stick graphs in Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, for example. For some reason, Oxburgh and his associates regrettably neglected to consider these articles.'
I get the feeling that Steve McIntyre is worth keeping an eye on in this regard as might be Bishop Hill.
"They stopped government doing things... budgets were cut by up to 60%, public sector employment declined by a quarter and lo within three years the budget was back in surplus and stayed there, the currency soared and the economy boomed"
An interesting little piece I found on the BBC website.
Here is a debate on the film with Andrew Neil, Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo. Top line from David Starkey
"We have had a low dishonest 15 years... the New Labour government... was never a government it was a machinery for winning elections and it won them by lying"
Michael Portillo actually explains that the national income cake is not of a fixed size as most politicians and the BBC like to pretend - "there is no understanding of economic dynamism" and pushes 'supply side economics' a long forgotten idea.
David Starkey's prediction of public sector strikes is an accurate one and one that should be giving David Cameron nightmares.
I have blogged many times before about the BBC's Poll Tracker and how its speed of update varies seemingly according to the whim of the BBC. Today is no different, as Beeb Bias Craig notes the BBC last night were reporting just two of the three polls released: Populus (Times) - 3% Comres (ITV/Independent) - 5% YouGov (Sun) - 8%
Fairly obviously they were not reporting the YouGov poll, which is odd as they normally love Peter 'husband of Labour's never elected Lady Ashton' Kellner. So when I looked at Poll Tracker what do I find? The YouGov result has been added to the database but does not show up as the latest poll as that is reserved for the new 'Poll of Polls'. This means that when they update Poll Tracker with the two more favourable (to Labour) polls, the 'Poll of Polls' will show a narrowing of the Conservative lead. I believe the current expression that would cover this is 'simples'.
There is an election to saved from the Conservatives and the BBC are going to do their best to save it for Labour. All the little tricks are being pulled out and each is just a small factor, but they add up and the BBC know that.
'Now the Conservatives plan to again protect the privacy and liberty of homeowners by taking the following actions:
* All powers of entry inside homes by state officials would require a magistrates’ warrant. These restrictions will apply to all quangos, departments and agencies which are not specified law enforcement bodies or emergency services. * New statutory guidance will stop magistrates giving consent for entering inside a home unless a serious criminal offence was suspected of being committed, or if there was a clear threat to public safety. The provisions would not apply to illegally occupied sites (e.g. squatters, travellers) or to long-term vacant property (e.g. rundown, boarded up properties). * The powers of the Valuation Office Agency to enter homes for council tax valuations will be abolished outright, as will town hall powers to seize and spy on people’s bins. Labour plans to give bailiffs powers of forced entry into homes to collect civil debts will be revoked.'
That's the choice Labour totalitarianism or Conservative freedom.
Oh dear it looks as though all is not sweetness and light at the top of the Labour party. Last night's Channel 4 News included a short post manifesto launch interview with Peter Mandelson but do watch from around 6 minutes in. The Peter Mandelson interview includes these comments: "The spirit of Tony Blair was alive and well... It's such a New Labour manifesto, he will be shining, he will be certainly grinning, you know that Blair grin (from ear to ear), I think he's got that on him today". Ed Balls reacts happily to the reports of Peter Mandelson's comments (what choice does he have) but when he thinks the cameras are off he plaintively asks "He didn't really say that, did he?" Poor Ed Balls, a bully boy but not in the same league as Peter Mandelson.
I do also like Ed Balls 'Year Zero' approach to Labour history "Well Labour was a partnership from the beginning, between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown". Yes because there was no Labour party before 1994 was there.
Here is a little piece on the BBC to make us feel soft and fluffy towards Cuba but it does beg some questions, not that the BBC will ask them:
'Cuba is turning over hundreds of state-run barber shops and beauty salons to employees in what may be the start of a long-expected privatisation drive.
All barbers and hairdressers in shops with three seats or fewer will be allowed to rent the space and pay taxes instead of getting a monthly wage.
The retail sector has long been derided for poor service and rampant theft.
The country's former President, Fidel Castro, nationalised all small businesses in 1968.
'Slow and cautious'
Now his younger brother and successor Raul Castro is trying to modernise the system without jumping to full-scale capitalism.
Other communist countries such as China and Vietnam have long since pushed through market reforms while maintaining political control.
President Castro's first economic reforms involved giving unproductive state-owned land to private farmers.
Some taxi drivers are allowed to work for themselves.
This is his first attempt to deal with shops in the retail and service sector.
'A furious transatlantic row has erupted over quotes that were attributed to a retired Italian bishop, which suggested that Jews were behind the current criticism of the Catholic church's record on tackling clerical sex abuse.
A website quoted Giacomo Babini, the emeritus bishop of Grosseto, as saying he believed a "Zionist attack" was behind the criticism, considering how "powerful and refined" the criticism is.
The comments, which have been denied by the bishop, follow a series of statements from Catholic churchmen alleging the existence of plots to weaken the church and Pope Benedict XVI.
Allegedly speaking to the Catholic website Pontifex, Babini, 81, was quoted as saying: "They do not want the church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God killers."'
Of course the denials are flowing:
'As the interview appeared on Italy's main newspaper sites today, complete with the American reaction, the Bishops' Conference rushed out a statement quoting Babini denying he had ever given the interview in the first place. "Statements I have never made about our Jewish brothers have been attributed to me," he said.'
This would be convincing had it not been for the following:
'Babini has previously been quoted on the Pontifex website accusing Jews of exploiting the Holocaust, as well as criticising homosexuality.'
I see that Nick Clegg has been brave enough to undertake an interview with Jeremy Paxman, on BBC at the moment. I wonder if Gordon Brown will finally agree to an equivalent interview with Jeremy Paxman, or he still the big fearty that he often seems to be? Happy enough in front of a tame audience at today's manifesto launch or meeting Labour supporters in a cosy family setting but not happy to be questioned by a decent interviewer.
I note that Gordon Brown's warm up at today's manifesto launch Ellie Gellard has previously twittered about Lady Thatcher's portrait unveiling at Downing Street last November, thus:
'Hope they're hanging it at top of stairs,nxt 2 where some1 carelessly left tht skateboard.'
What a delightful young lady, just perfect for Gordon Brown.
'Senior Labour minister Sadiq Khan has been accused of abusing House of Commons expenses to support his election campaign.
Days before the dissolution of Parliament for the election, Mr Khan, a transport minister, used Commons stationary and pre-paid envelopes to write to hundreds of voters in his marginal seat lauding his own record.
The Conservatives will on Monday make a formal complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards about Mr Khan, the MP for Tooting in south London.'
This is of course the same Sadiq Khan who had recent problems over some rather peculiar printing receipts.
Back in March the BBC ignored this story of Labour malpractice and I unsurprised to note that they are ignoring this story as well. Sadiq Khan is quite clearly untouchable so far as the BBC are concerned.
Labour's 'promise' not to raise income tax rates needs to be seen in context. Here's a promise from their 2005 general election manifesto, it's on page 16, ‘We will not raise the basic or top rates of income tax . . .’
That's odd I could have sworn Labour increased the top rate of tax from 40% to 50% in this year's budget - a 25% rise in tax rate.
IOL report that Julius Malema has been showing his class again:
'Julius Malema seems to have blown it. Yesterday the ANC Youth League leader had another tantrum, this time in Limpopo, where he clouted a party rival with a chair and threw journalists out of a chaotic youth league conference.
...
According to rivals, Malema threw youth league Limpopo chairman Lehlohonolo Masoga out of the conference and dissolved the provincial executive committee. Masoga could not be reached for comment later.
But Malema said the provincial executive committee had dissolved itself and that Masoga and his group had "gone to ground" and were not ejected.
And he confirmed that his national leadership had taken over the conference.
During the conference one of the delegates from the rival group went up to Malema and taunted him, prompting the youth league leader - who had just arrived at the registration hall - to pick up a chair and hit him. This is when the fighting broke out. As chaos erupted in the hall, Malema gave orders to throw out the media.
Referring to the incident later, Malema said he had merely chased the delegate because he wanted to reprimand him for dancing on top of a table.
At the conference, members of a group opposed to Malema's choice of provincial chairperson chanted "Malema, we don't want your agenda" and "No to tenders committee" - an implication that the youth leader has amassed wealth through government tenders.'
The BBC are really excited that the Labour manifesto is about to be launched and they are trailing, amongst other things, a pledge not to raise income tax. Now leaving aside for the moment that this promise doesn't rule out further rises in national insurance etc., what would be an interesting question to ask Gordon Brown is:
"Are your manifesto pledges promises or are they not subject to legitimate expectation"
For chapter and verse on the source of that phrase, may I recommend Trixy from Feb 2008 when
'In the court case brought against him for breach of contract over a referendum on the EU Constitution, Brown's personal barrister has just told the court that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".'
So five years on from the last set of pledges and promises, many of which were broken, Labour are back with a new manifesto; I wonder which of this year's promises are actually lies?
'SCOTLAND YARD has bowed to Islamic sensitivities and accepted that Muslims are entitled to throw shoes in ritual protest -- which could have the unintended consequence of politicians or the police being hit.
News of the concession by the Metropolitan police has come to light amid a series of trials of more than 70 mostly Muslim demonstrators who were charged with violent disorder after last year's Gaza protests outside the Israeli embassy in London.
Aquib Salim, 21, an IT student at Queen Mary, London University, who was involved in a shoe-throwing incident, is almost certain to avoid a prison sentence as a result.
Chris Holt, Salim's solicitor, said he was likely to get a suspended sentence after he pleaded guilty to a single charge of throwing a stick at police lines.
"The court accepted that the earlier shoe-throwing incident was simply a ritual form of protest and therefore not a criminal act of violence," Holt said.
Judge Denniss agreed that the act of shoe-throwing should not be considered in a charge of violent disorder against the student because it was "a symbolic" political gesture.
...
The concession has already been taken up enthusiastically by Muslim demonstrators, who pelted Downing Street with shoes in protest at the Israeli bombing of Gaza last year.
Dozens of ski-boots and clogs were also hurled at the US consulate in Edinburgh in a related protest, in which three policemen sustained minor injuries....'
When the rule of law is different for different communities and some acts of violent protest by one community are traeted more leniently than for any other community you have unfairness; in this case it is just one more step in the dhimmitude of the UK.
It's the last round of The Masters and apart from a short break to watch who gets dropped from looking for a Dorothy (Over the Rainbow), have to keep Mrs NotaSheep happy, it's going to be golf all the way tonight.
By the way Bronte should not have been in the bottom three tonight, it was a travesty, I would have put Steph out myself but that's what comes of asking the UK public their opinion.
Back to the golf and Lee Westwood is not making it a relaxing evening, especially that 3rd shot at the seventh - ooooh, aaaah. Tiger's on a charge and Fred Couples & Phil Mickelson look threatening. I've been here watching golf majors too many times since Paul Lawrie won the Open in 1999 and as for The Masters since Nick Faldo in 1996.
What worries me is that people are making birdies (and dropping shots as well) whilst Lee seems determined to make as many pars as possible; you are going to need to make some birdies Lee - especially as Phil Mickelson has just drawn level after the eighth.
Some incredible golf over the last hour and can Lee make up the ground he has lost?
Anthony Kim - birdie, birdie, eagle, birdie - blimey!
Phil Mickelson recovery shot from the woods at the 13th - blimey squared!
But Lee Westwood birdies the 13th and Phil Mickelson misses his eagle put and then makes his birdie.
Phil Mickelson two ahead with four to play. Is Lee Westwood the only one of the top four not to have made an eagle today? Great par put at the 14th by Lee though.
Looks like another third for Lee Westwood, his fourth in Majors in the last eight tournaments...
Two behind going up the 18th fairway, looks like Lee Westwood is not going to break the UK's long draught. How long do we have to wait? Let's try willing Phil's second shot into the bunker.... hmm straight at the flag and I can't see him taking more than two from there, so either Lee pops this one in or he's not going to win... he's not going to win!
Earlier today I told Mrs NotaSheep that it would be bed by midnight and it looks like I was right. Bed by midnight and no British winner. How many birdies did Lee Westwood just miss today? Too many that's for sure, if only two or three had dropped. Ah well there's always the Open...
Apparently Gordon Brown has blocked a peerage for army chief Sir Richard Dannatt, because he has dared to tell the truth about Gordon Brown's (lack of) funding for the armed forces and of course because he has come out as a Conservative supporter. Meanwhile it seems likely that he will ennoble John Prescott, one of the stupidest and nastiest men it has been my misfortune to ever have to listen to.
I have just completed The Telegraph's 'How should I vote in the general election' feature and here are my results - I chose not to knock out any party that I would never vote for as I like to see all 'options' - interesting: UK Independence Party: 78% British National Party: 69% Conservative Party: 42% Liberal Democrats: 29% Green Party: 23% Labour Party: 14%
Best Match - UK Independence Party
After the five refining questions I match thus: UK Independence Party: 75% British National Party: 70% Conservative Party: 51% Liberal Democrats: 44% Green Party: 37% Labour Party: 33%
Best Match - UK Independence Party
Very interesting indeed but I take issue with some of the questions: As an example - Q2: Parliamentary Reform: The number of MPs should be reduced by 10% - Well I would say more than 10% so do I agree because I want to reduce the number of MPs, disagree because I want to reduce by more than 10% or vote open minded? I decided to agree as this would be a start.
What is interesting is that I least match with Labour not the Greens and that I do appear to be further right than I think. What confuses me is the high placing for the BNP, because I think of them as quite a left-wing party economically, so maybe there are not enough questions about the economy and too many about immigration and law & order matters.
So will UKIP get my vote? The problem is that whilst I might match better with UKIP, UKIP cannot win in my constituency (it is a Labour/Conservative battle) and UKIP can certainly not win the general election. Will the BNP get my vote? Not a chance, too left wing and I am not sure if they would like me as a member anyway, although I am sure they would accept my vote. So do I vote UKIP or conservative? Time will tell.
I get 50 or so google searches hitting this site for every bing search, so this bing search caught my attention - dr who companions nude - which had a picture linked to this article.
Here's the rather fetching picture of Katy Manning and a Dalek
In the UK, just days after Shirley Chaplin, the Christain nurse, lost her discrimination battle against Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Trust, which said the cross she has worn since she was 16 was a ‘hazard’ because it could scratch patients, the Department of Health has announced that female Muslim doctors and nurses will be permitted to cover their arms on hospital wards to preserve their modesty and so opt out, for religious reasons, of the strict NHS dress codes introduced to prevent the spread of deadly hospital superbugs. So why is a Christian not allowed to wear a small cross around the neck in case it scratches a patient (something that has never happened to Shirley Chaplin) but followers of Islam working in the NHS will be exempted from the hygiene regulations introduced to try and stop the spread of MRSA C.Difficle and and other superbugs that our filthy NHS hospitals spread from patient to patient.
'Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned.
Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I, Ann Barnhardt, a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax.
Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de-facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.'
Sean Linnane explains that dhimmitude has two purposes, the obvious one that 'it enriches the Muslim masters' but also that it
'serves to drive conversions to Islam.' and here is why: 'In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver; "Sure, I'll be a Muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"'
Saturday's Telegraph had a very interesting article about 'The man playing South Africa's death card' and described the tactics being used by Julius Malema to stir up trouble in South Africa. It's a chilling piece to anyone who sees South Africa as a still salvageable country. Here are some extracts:
'Malema was in Harare, feasting with Robert Mugabe and picking up tips on how best to destroy the teetering remnants of Western influence here in South Africa. Terreblanche's murder was an individual tragedy. Malema's actions threaten to destroy an entire subcontinent.
Julius Malema is a chubby man-child who rose to prominence as Jacob Zuma's attack dog, threatening violence against anyone who sought to block the Zulu patriarch's rise to the state presidency. When Zuma emerged triumphant, Malema found himself in the pound seats. A poorly educated 28-year-old, he mysteriously acquired two posh houses, a fleet of cars and an obscenely expensive Breitling watch – curious accessories for a man who positions himself as champion of the poor.
...
...he picked a fight with cabinet minister Jeremy Cronin, South Africa's most visible white Communist, who had dared to opine that his enthusiasm for nationalisation had much to do with a fondness for bling and nothing to do with the plight of the poor. In response, Malema reportedly sent Cronin a threatening SMS: "Wait to see what's coming to you."
...
On his trip to Harare, Malema was met at the airport by a clutch of notorious profiteers whose connection to the great dictator enabled them to grow rich even as their country died. These "vultures" are said to be slavering at the prospect of another killing as Mugabe moves to dismember Zimbabwe's last surviving businesses and mines in the name of "indigenisation".
By all accounts, Malema was thrilled to make their acquaintance. They organised a crowd to sing his controversial song about shooting Boers. Then they whisked him off in a presidential Mercedes Benz and put him up in Harare's most expensive hotel. In return, Malema expressed his unqualified admiration for the policies that have ruined Zimbabwe and vowed to press for their adoption south of the Limpopo River.
"In South Africa, we are just starting," said Malema. "Here you are already very far. We are very happy today that you can account for more than 300,000 new farmers, against the 4,000 who used to dominate agriculture. We hear you are now going straight to the mines. That's what we are going to be doing in South Africa. We want the mines. They have been exploiting our minerals for a long time. Now it's our turn also to enjoy from those minerals…"
On Thursday, Malema reiterated these sentiments at a press conference marked by an ugly racial attack on a BBC reporter. There has been no repudiation. The silence says something truly ominous: Malema has protection. Someone in the ANC – either the president himself, or an awesomely powerful faction inside the party – is encouraging him to rally the masses for a Zimbabwe-style obliteration of Africa's only viable economy and last surviving hope.
...
If you ask me, Malema is the point-man for a powerful ANC faction whose motive is greed and whose chosen weapon is racial demagoguery of the most primitive kind.
The trouble is that this card trumps all others. Our underclass is huge, poorly educated and desperately poor. They know what happened in Zimbabwe, but even so, the prospect of loot is irresistible, and that's Malema's bait. Mandela gave them free houses. Mbeki gave them welfare grants, leading to a situation where five million taxpayers support 13 million indigents, with the total rising far more rapidly than our ability to pay. Now Malema and the faceless vultures behind him are offering them the rest. They are playing the death card, the Ace of Spades. '
Meanwhile how are the BBC reporting the Julius Malema's verbal attack on one of their own reporters? The answer is obvious, not at all. You see after years of chanting "Free Nelson Mandela" in the 1980s and worshipping the 'living saint' that is Nelson Mandela in the 1990s the BBC still see the ANC as freedom fighters and the rightful rulers of South Africa. Thus the humiliation of one of their own interviewers by an ANC chief is just not worth mentioning. The BBC would far rather exult at the savage murder of Eugene Terreblanche as Omid Djalili and another did recently.
South Africa could be going down the same violent route as Zimbabwe and the BBC will not realise or report this until it is way too late. If you are a white South African farmer, then my advice is get out now. If you are a white South African mine owner or manager, then my advice is get out now. If you are a white South African business man, then my advice is start planning your escape. Finally if you are a white South African property owner, you may want to consider planning your exit for climes that may be less warm but somewhat safer; may I recommend the Mediterranean.
Imagine the fuss if a Conservative shadow minister had had a known 'gangster' attend a fundraiser; the BBC would have been all over the story for days. However when Jim Murphy is similarly implicated; not a whisper. Here's part of what the Herald Scotland had to say:
'A convicted gangster has appeared at a Labour Party election fundraiser for Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy.
Lewis Rodden – known as Scooby, and who was jailed in 2005 for his part in an extortion campaign – was seen at the dinner last month.
Mystery surrounds Rodden’s presence after it emerged that the organiser of the event, Labour councillor and Strathclyde Police Authority member Betty Cunningham, is on first-name terms with him.'
A few days back I blogged about Phil Woolas's appearance on the Daily Politics show and his 'explanation' of the immigration/new jobs figures. At the time I said that 'I am confused... ' Well it seems that Andrew Neil has decided to investigate Phil Woolas's claims further, do read the whole piece but here are a few extracts (my emphasis): '...I've now had a chance to study the transcript and to read the statistical explanatory note which goes with the ONS survey. Here are the facts:
...
2. It does not distinguish between immigrants and non-immigrants nor temporary or permanent workers. It simply establishes if you are working in Britain at the time of the snapshot and, among other things, asks if you are foreign or British born. This question -- and the definition of foreign-born -- is laid down by Eurostat, on whose behalf the Survey is down. Brussels controls the definitions and parameters so that it can make like-for-like comparisons across the EU.
3. Though, contrary to the minister's claims, the Survey does not distinguish between immigrant or temporary workers, its rules would tend not to count temporary foreign-born workers. The Statistical note explains: this Survey "is a Survey of private households and excludes people in communal establishments (eg hostels, students living in halls of residence) and people who have lived in the UK for less than six months. Arguably the excluded groups are likely to include disproportionately large numbers of migrants. It would be reasonable to infer from this that estimates of migrant/foreign worker numbers based on the LFS may be a little lower than they should be." (My italics)
4. Let's just pause to reflect what that means: temporary migrants tend to live in communal residencies and many might be here for less than six months. So the Survey is almost certainly an underestimate of the number of foreign-born workers in the British labour force at any one time.
5. Just to be clear, there is no double-counting: to return to the Minister's analogy, the Survey would not pick up the cumulative numbers at an Arsenal game over time -- just the crowd at the particular Arsenal game when the Survey was taken.
6. The number of foreign-born workers in the British labour force has doubled since 1997 (from 1.5m to 2.8m). It is true that foreign-born could apply to the offspring of expats whose children were born abroad, who are now of working age and who have returned to these shores. It even applies to Boris Johnson (who was born in America). But there is no evidence of a massive return of expats since 1997 (indeed the momentum has been the other way). Though the Survey is not directly concerned with immigration it is hard not to conclude that the huge rise of foreign-born in the labour force is directly related to the huge rise in immigration since 1997. If there's another explanation I'd be grateful for it.
Now there are many possible official responses to these figures. Ministers could argue that it is a good thing that foreign workers have come here to do jobs which British-born folk have shunned. They could also point out that there are hundreds of thousands of Brits working and living abroad and that national labour forces are a two-way street in the age of globalisation. What does not look credible is Mr Woolas's explanation on yesterday's show. It would appear to be factually wrong and doesn't stack up. He needs to explain why it was right -- or come up with another one. We'll be sending this note to him.'
Also PM on Thursday analysed the Gordon Brown/John Humphrys Today interview as well as the Phil Woolas one and decides that Gordon Brown was wrong, although if you include older workers then the percentage of net new jobs taken by foreign born workers is 'only' 72%. PM also take on Phil Woolas's football crowd claim and say that 'he is completely wrong'. So Phil Woolas will you come out and apologise for your 'misdirections'?
Mrs NotaSheep has got me watching 'Over the Rainbow' and I am having to feign interest, however one shocking revelation was that Bjork's 'It's oh so quet' was a cover version; so here's Bjork
and here's the original by Betty Hutton form 1951
Another post in the spirit of Radio London's Robert Elms "Cover to Cover" feature.
Another Steven Moffat written story and it had the usual element of 'let's scare the children' and I am all for that. In all a good episode, not an expensive one so there should be a lot of budget left for later episodes. But the ending, oh the ending... too much emotion and easy parallel drawing and .... no best forgotten.
And then as I am primed to to turn off before next week's spouler, they incorporate the spoiler into this week's story!
Labour's lies about who has benefited from its creation of 2.5 million jobs are well documented but less well known are the way that it has quite deliberately created a client state of people whose livelihoods depend upon payments from the state. I have remarked upon this phenomena before but an article on Burning Our Money caught my eye today:
'How many of our 6m public sector jobs are just another form of welfare?
The reason I ask is that listening to today's BBC coverage of the continuing debate over National Insurance Contributions (NICs), the question didn't get a mention.
...
This is public employment as welfare. And when we look a the high dependence on public sector jobs in the depressed regions of Britain today, we can see it's more than an empty slogan.
The one slight snagette is that welfare employees still need paying .... Which means that someone else has to part with the fruits of his own labour in order to provide the wherewithal. And all he'll get in exchange is the sight of another new pyramid, or if he's lucky, a government promise to repay the loan in some distant future, probably in debased coinage.
Getting low skill, low productivity, welfare dependents into work is going to be one of the very toughest challenges facing Cam's government. Given the catastrophic fiscal legacy, leaving them on the public payrolls will not be an option.'
IF, and it is still a big if, the Conservatives do win this general election then the exposing of the lies and manipulations that have been at the heart of Labour policy and actions for the last 13 years must be a top priority. The whole country must be made aware of what has really been happening and the culpability of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson in the ruination of this land. Of course I hope that a way is found to have the three of them (and there are others) tried and convicted for their crimes against the UK; an idle pipe-dream, probably but not a total impossibility?
'If the entire Greenland ice sheet melted, which is not predicted, scientists estimate that global sea levels would rise about 20 feet, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.'
and explains the slight problem:
'what percentage of its ice mass is Greenland losing each year, so how long have we got before the 20 feet engulf us all?
The new study says Greenland lost 385 cubic miles between 2002 and 2009. Sounds a lot.
Greenland has 700,000 cubic miles of ice. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet)
So it's losing 1% per century, 0.01% per year. Funny that number never appeared in the news reports.'
'...industry moving from the western world to the emerging nations, leaving behind unemployment and poverty while the Labour Government and the EU reward companies for killing British jobs, pay them billions for relocating to other countries, and not one ounce of CO2 reduced in the whole scam.
There never was a climate change problem, just snake oil and smoke and mirrors to hide the real agenda of wealth redistribution and one world government.'
Robin Sheperd notes the number of articles about Israel and remarks:
'Someone should do a larger study. But today’s evidence is clear. Every single article paints Israel in a negative or problematic light. One, quite nonchalantly, gives a voice to Holocaust denial. None paints the Palestinians in a negative light in any way shape or form.'
Robin Sheperd concludes:
'That is quite an achievement in a week when the Jerusalem Post — a paper freely available to BBC editors on the internet — has run a story with the following headline:
“Israel slams naming of Ramallah street after arch-terrorist” [A story about how the Palestinian Authority -- Israel's partner for peace -- has named a street in honour of Yehiyeh Ayash, a terrorist who murdered dozens of Israeli civilians]
That story comes hard on the heels of a decision in March by the same “moderate” Palestinian Authority to celebrate the worst terrorist atrocity ever perpetrated inside Israel (the 1978 bus massacres which left 38 dead including 13 children) by naming a central square in Ramallah after its perpetrator, Dalal Mughrabi.
The BBC refused to cover that story too.
This is not journalism. It’s agitprop. And it’s got to stop.'
Cazzy Jones has a fantastic idea to bring home to the public who is to blame for high petrol prices:
'Just imagine a dual till system on the forecourt, where the driver goes to the first till and pays £28 for the cost of the fuel and the retailer’s profit margin, and is then channelled to the second till, coming face to face with a bureaucrat who tells him: “Because you have spent money filling your car up, you must now give more money to the government.” “How much?” “£52.” “But that’s almost twice as much as what I’ve just paid the garage!” “Tough. Pay up and shut up.”'
David Cameron is looking for necessary savings and being attacked by the BBC/Labour alliance for threatening jobs, so surely he will be interested to learn that he could save £18.3 billion a year...
'One of the best-kept secrets of British politics – although it is there for all to see on a Government website – is the cost of what is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. Every year between now and 2050, according to Ed Miliband's Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc), the Climate Change Act is to cost us all up to £18.3 billion – £760 for every household in the country – as we reduce our carbon emissions by 80 per cent.
...
we contribute less than 2 per cent of global emissions, while China continues to build a new coal-fired power station every week, these empty getures will do nothing to reduce the world's overall "carbon footprint". Not that this makes any difference to global warming anyway – but at least it will give the Government billions more pounds of our money, while we still have any of it left.'
So what's more important David, appealing to the man made climate change brainwashed BBC and Guardian or saving money being spent on the pointless Climate Change Act?
If one animal is killed by an oil company or similar the enviromentalist lobby are up in arms, but when killed by a pointless wind-farm not a peep... because all must bow before the new religion of 'man made climate change.
